I will endure and battle with the so called dynamicduo, in other words i accept this challenge, but i shall warn you that this might not end well for me, speaking from your previous debates in which your opponents were vanquished.

Love is a complicated thing. But at least one thing is for sure: that love between one person of one gender being attracted to a relationship with another person of the same gender is okay! I mean, for example, if one man is attracted to another man, and they have a relationship, as long as these two men are happy, it seems that nothing should stop them from getting married. Gay marriage is even backed up:

"The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." (1)

Sorry for this being only one point, and at that short, but thank you for accepting this debate. Also, remember, no rebuttals (disputing an opponents claim/point) until the last round

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

2. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Imagine you are 16 years old, in high school and gay. People who were your friends in 3rd grade now hate you because you like the same gender. No one wants to be friends with you, even the teachers are noticeably more uncomfortable teaching you. You hate all of the negative attention and want it to stop. Your parents won't move you to a different school and now that people know you are a homosexual they will never forget. You see only one way out: Death.

"Teens who self-identify as homosexual are five times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to attempt suicide, according to a study released last week.

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics online on April 18, was conducted in order to determine whether living in a gay friendly social environment affected the risk of a teen identifying as homosexual committing suicide. It found that teens in unsupportive" social environments were 20 percent more at risk of attempting suicide than those in supportive" environments"

Is this right? Death that can be avoided happens only because people will not respect a persons happiness. Do you want teens dead? No? Then legalize gay marriage! Simple as that.

Argument #3: No impact on heterosexuals

If you are in a heterosexual marriage your partner is of the opposite gender and it is you and your partner ONLY. How does it affect you and your partner? Does it cause you to get cancer, or you become homeless all because of those two pesky boys who got married? No? Then I do not see a good reason to deny people a right to marry. Marriage is a right and it does not affect heterosexuals one way or the other.

Thanks pro OK here we go again:
3.It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex marriage is intrinsically sterile. If the spouses want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

You have been posting some very interesting stuff about families, especially about children. Well, have you considered that some kids have no parents and have become orphaned OR have families that beat them/ treat them poorly. Now, before you say "What about relatives?" What if all of your relatives besides the family you have left behind are overseas? Or if they are dead as well? If a gay couple were to adopt a child/children those children will have family. Might not be biological family, but still family. Would you rather have a mother and a father who hate you or two mom's who love you? The answer is obvious.

Argument #5: It is a human right!

We are all human. Male. Female. Short. Tall. Young. Old. Gay. Straight. 7 billion of all of us, stuffed into a planet. We created rights for a reason. To keep the balance between all human beings. Rights are not majority rules. Rights are for ALL of us. And by denying gays marriage you are violating 2 universal human rights

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 2:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty

Article 16:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State"

There is NO part that says that gays cannot be married. And in article 16 it does NOT mention that only men can marry women. Every country that denies gay marriage is violating human rights.

Man that's a lot of typing, but no problem:
4. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.

Well wake up bud, the world is changing. Many, many gay marriages are occurring now days. Also, take a look at this:

"(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities"- Dictionary.com

Nowhere does it say that this "marriage" has to be between a man and a women!
My opponent also said:

"It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children."

Ok, this is wrong on two levels. First of all, since when was the "primary purpose of marriage" to raise children? Marriage is usually made to bond two loving people together, not to make babies! And, it's not like you have to be married to have children!
Second of all, since when does being in a gay marriage stop "the raising of children." I would like to propose a word to my opponent: A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. Adopted kids can still be raised under two mothers or two fathers all the same!

Opponent's Point #2: "It always denies either a mother or father"

My opponent stated that:

"He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model."

Just because the child has no mother or father role model does not mean that they do not have a family role model! For example, two mothers could both be a role model for the child, or an aunt, uncle, sister, brother, cousin, etc.
Opponent's Point #3: "It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union"

I have repeated in this cross-examination time and time again that gay couples definitely CAN have "children." It may not be by blood but adoption is the same as having a child. You raise them, you take care of them, you love them, you support them, no matter if you are a complete blood parent. So yes, gay marriages ARE marriages and in them you CAN have babies!

Opponent's Point #4: "Natural Law"

Since when does "natural law" forbid gay marriage? And since when is marriage only about having kids?

Opponent's Point #5: "It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right"

My opponent stated:

"Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s."

I do not compare these two problems. This "point" though does not have anything to do with if "gay marriage" is okay. Thus, you rambling on talking how this is incorrect to compare the two is useless.

Just wanted to imply how i enjoyed disputing or debating with the the dynamicduodebaters, i look forward to more debates in various topics. I wish we could join forces "dynamic trio debaters" hahah that would be cool. anyways good luck DDD

Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the last round (conduct Pro), pro used some good sources while con did not (sources Pro), and Pro had good points while making a rebuttal con's points (arguments Pro)

Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources, but they were unreliable. Pro also said Gays commit suicide. Well guns commit murder, but they aren't illegal and cars cause crashes, but they aren't illegal. The world is changing isn't a good excuse anyhow. Everybody was killing Jews in the 1930's in Germany. Let's just go with it.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.